...
The same can be said for COH1 to some extent. If I choose defensive doctrine campy MG play on Wrecked Train that is an experience based decision. The difference is the game is more balanced, has more fuel upgrades, and isn't dominated by the P2W commander of the month that dictates play, giving more free reign w/ the choices you make mid and late game. Your going pretty off-topic though.
I wasn't taking a piss at COH2, all I said was making an insta choice doctrine slightly weaker isn't really detracting that much from strategy. This is really off-topic and no need to discuss further.
you made it sound as if i choose ostruppen commander at the start so i can build my whole army composition around the commander from to get go is shallower in strategy then just simply choosing the puma commander in mid game because you are pushed into it.
but this "insta choice" problem you are referring to really is a balance problem. don't you think?
Do you feel like you've achieved anything at all today, by arguing with people on the internet, using walls of text?
Clearly all of you have strong opinions, and are unwilling to change your own.
Before I argue with someone, I always ask myself "Does this person hold as strong as opinion as I do?"
If the answer is yes, dont bother arguing, do something that will be more rewarding instead.
Just something to consider before a long winded argument next time
In b4 Mr_S is gay, et al.
what is the fun in people who dont have strong opinion?
It is unfortunate to see the community so divided on this that we are willing to tear into each other.
I understand the risk v. reward in COH1 aspect of building design, and I really, really liked it in that game. However, COH2 has significant differences in level design, faction design, and diversity which this change will not take into account.
Had this been built into the game in 2013 or early in the game's life I would have been 100% for it. Since the design of the game widely departed from COH1 after this point I don't think it appropriate to try to bring back this mechanic.
The rally point system, while certainly imperfect adds a seriously important element in team games where teams can work together or split up as soon as the game starts, providing interesting strategy options. This will be completely removed by forcing spawns in buildings. To add to the benefit in 1v1 is small, since 2 factions gain literally 0 choice about base layout. If the problem is inconsistency in delay, simply move the starting off map point to the edge of the map so that units appear and near instantly enter the field.
Again, I understand the draw for both sides, but I am afraid at this stage in the COH2 life cycle this change does more harm than good. I am willing to test it, but my general feeling is to wait until COH3 to return this feature (as well as commander tech tree choices).
Edit: Another option, would be to make the build order part of the walk-in time. As the unit approaches completion it begins entering the map, if canceled it spins around and walks back, but if completed it arrives at exactly the same moment as the announcement of its production. This would, I assume, solve the issue of arrival outside of control time. Another simpler option is to leave the units symbol greyed out until the unit is on the field to give the player a very obvious tool to know when the squad can be ordered to begin a task.
good points and even simpler way would be move the spawn point to the edge of the playable area in all maps, which some maps already have, sort of.
and i do agree with being able to order unit right away would be objectively better.
If I didn't know who you are I would think that this post is supposed to be a satire. The elitism and snobbiness...holy shit. Also when did you and inverse gather the high level experience in coh2 you were mentioning ?
Snobbish? I guess, I'm just not sugar coating. Some of us have been through all stages of the COH life cycle. Would you tell a 90 year old guy he's snobbish because he says he knows more than you about an event that happened before you were born?
just because you lived it does not mean you have somehow more valid knowledge or opinion. yes, if you have not lived it, you will lack personal connection and maybe that will lead to 'wrong' opinions. on the same token, if you have lived it, you might develop other natural characteristics that hinder you from making the 'right' decision such as nostalgia or definition of "norm". ppl who transitioned from vcoh to coh2 probably thought the new system was a deviation from the norm from the get-go and held that belief since then.
Kudos to Inverse for having more patience than I ever could. Talking to the vast majority of people who have only played COH2 about balance in this game is like arguing with a child about 99 pennies vs 1 dollar.
Unless you've played both games at a high level for a good period of time you probably won't understand.
This. So many times I see people in balance forum, many of which aren't really qualified to have a valid opinion, saying "no you can't change this because that." An example over this past week "no you can't make mines not insta wipe squads because that is the only way to deal with infiltration troops." Its complete mongoloid logic. Fix the fucking game design, try to tweak the balance at the same time to compensate, and if it needs further ironing out then make some more changes in the next patch. So many fanboys in balance forums losing their shit because improving the game as a whole might weaken the only faction they know how to play for a month or two. We shouldn't even have a balance discussion its 95% low tier gobbly goop.
Moving on, VonIvan is not an authority on this subject. Sure he knows more about current COH2 meta, what doctrine best counters emplacement regiment, how well Comets are currently performing against Panthers, etc. This is a design issue, and there are other people here more qualified to speak in terms of general RTS design than he is.
if you are gonna stroke Inverse so thoroughly, while you are at it remember that (please correct me if i am wrong but i am 99% sure) it was Inverse who said something like 'balance discussion belongs to pro players and gameplay mechanics discussions belongs to normal gamers'. here's the quote :
Am I totally out of line to think that this change is a DESIGN change that will affect balance? A Design change that will not improve the game objectively. the most convincing argument is 'it will speed up the early game'. does early game need speeding up? i don't think so.
This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE. Maybe it will somehow fix all the problems. Probably not since you know... logic. Yes, I should not have quoted thunderhun's quote fully, i only agree with partially so my position might not be as clear but all I am saying is that:
This is a SUBJECTIVE DESIGN change that WILL affect BALANCE most likely negatively.
If this was a change something that of implementing acceleration (removing instant acceleration), I think that would be more objective change that will add more depth and second to second tactic to the game, I would be all for it.
And I can't just sit on a sideline while old has been elites with heads the size of both Dakotas tell me, who according to one of them have valid concerns about this and do not understand why it has to change, that I am a short-sided kid.
This is pretty long and I did not proof read so please poke holes in it if you want to. I am up for changing my mind if actual valid arguments crop up.
No one's even played the balance mod, but here we have 90 posts of incendiary theory crafting.
Inverse is right, any balance concerns will be short lived, unit build times can easily be adjusted. Of course when most people don't even read the notes fully they somehow think tanks and shit will be spawning from okw hqs.
This will speed up the early game, especially on large fuck off maps, and can potentially make new moves viable (mining krieg barracks entrance anyone?)
you think relic has thought of all the small ripples of affects that this will cause? which is also map dependent on maps that were designed FOR OLD SYSTEM? in maps with big bases, ost will outnumber USF in the first engagement even more.
oh but im sure relic considered all the angles.
when it comes down to the bare bone, whether you like the coh2 system or not depends on your personal preferences. As Inverse said, your reinforced members already come out of any base buildings so SOV and OST should've put their bases as far out as they could ANYWAY. Didn't see any risk v. reward plays involving those "strategic" choices yet.
This is patching in personal preferences. yes, that preference might be shared by the most but again, this change on a broader game that was not designed for this means risking potential problems just to satisfy your opinion that is neither more right nor better than the others.
1. What risk???? Tell me how many times your base buildings got lost? Attacking a base is suicide in Coh. So much for that.
2. Where would you like to speed up the game? First tanks come out at 6-8 mins. Early-game is basicly dead.
3. Sure lets give OKW a huge buff by changing this spawn system, I want my Panther to pop out of the Schwerer's Flak Gun so I can no-skill wipe any attacking allied armor trying to kill my T4. Also, UKF and USF would be rekt with these changes.
i like current system either. new system got no risk v reward. how many time have you actually pushed far enough to destroy enemy's base bunkers? in real game.
Canada
4
4 
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
